Project Summary

View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions,
and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.

Please correct the errors noted below.

Summer SteelheadProduction of summer steelhead has averaged approximately 146,600 smolts since 1992 (Table 1). This production level has resulted in a sport and tribal fisheries, but has only met the Master Plan adult return goal (5,500) in run year 2001-02 (Chess et al 2003). Elimination of the hatchery program would mostly likely result in closing of fishing opportunity in the Umatilla River. Table 1. Summer steelhead reared at Umatilla Hatchery and released in the Umatilla Subbasin, 1988- 2005.1992 184,800 1997 137,200 2002 127,2001993 158,200 1998 137,400 2003 130,6001994 154,800 1999 131,500 2004 156,1001995 146,400 2000 153,700 2005 140,5001996 146,700 2001 160,300 2006 *135,000*Projected release numberFall Chinook Production of sub-yearling fall Chinook averaged 2.67 million between 1994 and 2000. The program was reduced starting with releases in 2001 due to poor adult returns to the Umatilla River, as well as, concerns of strays into the Snake River. Since 2001, the sub-yearling release has averaged approximately 621,000. Fall Chinook provide an established harvest opportunity for both sport and tribal fishers. Elimination of the hatchery program would result in fewer fish harvested (Table 2). A portion of this project funds fish transfers from Bonneville Hatchery (John Day mitigation 480,000 yearlings) to CTUIR operated acclimation pond (Thornhollow). This production level has not resulted in 12,000 adult return goal identified in the Master Plan. Only a few thousand adults have return to the Umatilla River from this program (Chess et al 2003). Table 2. Fall Chinook reared at Umatilla Hatchery and released in the Umatilla Subbasin, 1994- 2005.Release Year Umatilla-Sub-yearlings1994 2,469,200 2000 3,030,0001995 2,960,400 2001 648,0001996 2,580,800 2002 620,0001997 2,777,400 2003 625,6001998 1,842,600 2004 608,6001999 3,020,500 2005 603,500Note: An additional production of 480,000 yearlings is provided through John Day mitigation. Spring ChinookProduction goals have varied throughout this program with experimental releases of sub-yearling spring release, pre-smolt fall releases, and full term smolt releases of Chinook in the between 1992 and 1994 (Chess et al 2003). Evaluation of the program (1990-005-00) determined that full term smolt were most productive (Chess et al 2003). Since 1996, production has focused on smolt releases. Due to water limitations at Umatilla Hatchery, production has occurred at various Columbia River hatcheries (Table 3). Currently, the spring Chinook production goal is 810,000 yearling (full term smolt) spring released smolts. Umatilla Hatchery goal is 600,000 smolts and 210,000 at Little White National Fish Hatchery (LWNFH).This production level has resulted in both sport and tribal fisheries in the Umatilla River, as well as, contributed to the Columbia River fisheries. This program has not produced the 8,000 adult goal identified in the Master Plan; however, four to five thousand adults have returned annually between 2000 and 2003 (Chess et al 2003). Elimination of the hatchery program would mostly likely result in closing of fishing opportunity in the Umatilla River.

BPA will work with sponsors and Umatilla Basin RME projects to address during next round of ISRP review.

Conditions:

Council Condition #1
Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—The management plan for Conservation and Harvest groups should be more fully developed and tested and presented at the next ISRP review. The fate of Spring Chinook Natural Origin Returns (NOR), released upstream or taken upstream, should be described, as well as the fate of NOR Fall Chinook. The use of NOR in the Conservation broodstock might be limited such that it does not inhibit natural development of a self sustaining population, if this is the goal, by establishing a minimum required escapement. A decision tree on the use of NOR returns for hatchery broodstock and natural spawning is needed in the management plan.

BPA Response to Council Condition #1:
<no comment>

Council Condition #2
Qualification: The management plan for Conservation and Harvest groups should be more fully developed and tested and presented at the next ISRP review. The fate of Spring Chinook Natural Origin Returns (NOR), released upstream or taken upstream, should be described, as well as the fate of NOR Fall Chinook. The use of NOR in the Conservation broodstock might be limited such that it does not inhibit natural development of a self sustaining population, if this is the goal, by establishing a minimum required escapement. A decision tree on the use of NOR returns for hatchery broodstock and natural spawning is needed in the management plan.
.

The proponents answered the ISRP’s questions satisfactorily. Mostly the questions were more appropriate for other projects, not the Operations and Maintenance project, but the proponents answered that acclimation is widely accepted as effective, that there is a plan for management of Conservation and Harvest groups, and that even if adequate harvest cannot be provided by a self sustaining natural population, harvest is a goal of artificial production.

Qualifications:
The management plan for Conservation and Harvest groups should be more fully developed and tested and presented at the next ISRP review. The fate of Spring Chinook Natural Origin Returns (NOR), released upstream or taken upstream, should be described, as well as the fate of NOR Fall Chinook. The use of NOR in the Conservation broodstock might be limited such that it does not inhibit natural development of a self sustaining population, if this is the goal, by establishing a minimum required escapement. A decision tree on the use of NOR returns for hatchery broodstock and natural spawning is needed in the management plan.

This proposal is to fund production of salmon and steelhead for a hatchery program in the Umatilla River basin in support of subbasin plans. A recent innovation in 2009 is to create two groups of smolts, a “Conservation” group derived from natural origin returns and a “Harvest” group of smolts derived from hatchery origin returns. The two groups are to be reared and released at separate locations, the “Harvest” group low in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be vulnerable to fisheries and the “Conservation” group high in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be less vulnerable to fisheries and in better spawning habitat. The assumptions are that the “Conservation” group, relatively relieved of harvest pressure and sustained primarily by natural origin returns (i.e. an Integrated program in the sense of HSRG), will over generations adapt to the habitat high in the watershed and ultimately naturalize as a self sustaining population in the river and that the “Harvest” group (i.e. a Segregated program in the sense of HSRG) will be highly vulnerable to harvest in the lower river and will remain isolated from the “Conservation” group.

A response is requested on the following three items:

1. What has been the effect of supplementation on summer steelhead, fall Chinook, and spring Chinook in the basin? Is the project impeding or advancing recovery as part of RPA 39?

2. Explain how the new “Conservation” and “Harvest” broodstocks will be managed separately for their different goals.

3. Will the harvest needs in the basin (now to be met by the four-times larger “Harvest” broodstock) ever be satisfied by a future self-sustaining population? Are harvest needs in the basin being met now? If not, why not?

The purpose of the program is stated as artificial production with an emphasis on supplementation of summer steelhead, fall Chinook, and spring Chinook. The proposal numerically summarizes production of smolts and indicates that the program has produced fewer adults than the program goals (without giving actual numbers) and states for each of the three programs that “Elimination of the hatchery program would mostly likely result in closing of fishing opportunity” apparently a response to the ISRP 2007 review recommendation to eliminate or modify these failing programs.

Despite its centrality in the purpose of the program no information about the effect of supplementation by any of the three programs is given. No information is given about whether the project is impeding recovery as required by RPA 39

The ISRP review of the entire Umatilla program in 2006 (ISRP2007-15) noted that the program had not achieved its salmon or steelhead goals for either escapement or harvest and raised the concern “whether the long-term fitness of the (steelhead) population that has been supplemented has deteriorated from interbreeding with fish that have had parents (or grandparents) reared in a hatchery.” The ISRP recommended that the hatchery production components of the program “consider modifying the spring Chinook and steelhead program goals and eliminating the fall Chinook program.”

In response to this recommendation and in response to an HSRG review the Umatilla program changed production methods in 2009 to create two groups of smolts, a “conservation” group derived from natural origin returns and a “harvest” group of smolts derived from hatchery origin returns. The two groups are to be reared and released at separate locations, the “harvest” group low in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be vulnerable to fisheries and the “conservation” group high in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be less vulnerable to fisheries and in better spawning habitat. The critical assumption is that the “conservation” group, relatively relieved of harvest pressure and sustained primarily by natural origin returns, will over generations adapt to the habitat high in the watershed and ultimately naturalize as a sustaining population to the river.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

All accomplishments are described as numbers of juveniles reared and transferred. No indication is given of the resulting harvest or the resulting supplementation with respect to program goals. The proponents should provide information about progress toward program goals i.e. artificial production emphasizing supplementation.

Will the program’s management adapt to successful supplementation, i.e. re establishment of a sustainable natural population, by restraining harvest within the productivity of the natural population or will there be perpetual artificial production of harvest fish.

If releases of hatchery fish are not meeting goals for adult returns, is there information to suggest the causes for this?

This project links closely with the four others in the Umatilla Restoration Program.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables are restricted to fish production, and no methods are described. How do the fish production deliverables relate to the Umatilla Program goals? How will the deliverables relate to the production of Conservation and Harvest subpopulations?

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: () All Questionable RPA Associations (50.7) and All Deleted RPA Associations (0)

The ISRP concludes that the Umatilla Program is too large and complex for a brief annual review and should receive an intensive overall review of all program elements and the progress that has been made in attaining project objectives (also see ISRP comments on Project 199000500 and on the "Umatilla Initiative" under proposal 198343600).

In general, the Program seems to be well organized but is not reaching its overall adult fish production goals. Release numbers are presented in a table but few data (text only) on adult returns and harvest are provided. Adult return goals have not been met for any of the species, a result of low smolt-to-adult survival. Some adaptive management is indicated in the spring chinook program (reductions). There is insufficient communication of program results and impacts, even if there is a separate M&E project.